voice system of austronesian and its origins · t´ıtis ‘cigar or cigarette ash’ vs. titis-an...

Introduction The data Previous accounts A New Proposal Synchronic analysis Conclusion

Voice system of Austronesian and its origins

Gasper Begus

Harvard [email protected]

Berkeley Linguistic Society42nd Annual MeetingFebruary 5, 2016

Gasper Begus Harvard University — [email protected]



General on voice system

What is AN voice?

What is AN voice/focus system?

Typologically highly unusual morphosyntactic category

Descriptive facts quite straightforward





What is AN voice?

One argument in a clause has a special, “pivotal” role

Depending on the semantic role of that argument, thisspecial role is overtly marked on the verb

(Chung and Polinsky 2009; Blust 2013)

The special argument bears properties of a subject:

Surfaces in subject positionCan be marked with nominative caseCan be extracted under subject-only restriction





Philippine-type voice system

A typical Philippine-type voice system has four voices:

active voice

passive voice

locative voice

instrumental voice





Examples

(1) a. b-um-ilıbuy-av

naN

gen

kotsecar

aN lalakenom man

“The man bought a car.”b. b-in-ilı

buy-pv.pf

naN

gen

lalakeman

aN kotsenom car

“A man bought the car.”





Examples

(2) a. b-in-i-bilh-anred-perf-buy-lv

naN

gen

lalakeman

naN

gen

isdaP

fish

aN bataP

nom child

“A man is buying fish from the child.”





Examples


naN

gen

lalakeman

naN

gen

isdaP

fish

aN bataP

nom child

“A man is buying fish from the child.”b. i-b-in-ilı

bv-perf-buy

naN

gen

lalakeman

naN

gen

isdaP

fish

aN bataP

nom child

“A man bought some fish for the child.”





Examples


naN

gen

lalakeman

naN

gen

isdaP

fish

aN bataP

nom child

“A man is buying fish from the child.”b. i-b-in-ilı

bv-perf-buy

naN

gen

lalakeman

naN

gen

isdaP

fish

aN bataP

nom child

“A man bought some fish for the child.”c. (i-)p-in-am-bilı

iv-perf-buy

naN

gen

lalakeman

naN

gen

isdaP

fish

aN peraP

nom money

“A man bought some fish with the money.”





Theoretical accounts

Heterogeneous theoretical analyses

Focus marking, case marking, or simply agreement markingbetween the “special” subject and the verb?

Almost no consensus on synchronic analysis





Historical accounts

Even less consensus on the history of such a system

Wolff’s 1973 reconstruction

Two proposals:

Nominalization hypothesisVoice-first hypothesis




Goals of the paper

Goals of the paper

How did this typologically unusual system develop?

What morphosyntactic processes led to AN voice system?




Goals of the paper

Broader implications

How far can internal reconstruction get us?

Methodological consideration

How can diachronic syntax inform theoretical syntax?




Outline

1 IntroductionGeneral on voice systemGoals of the paper

2 The dataProto-Austronesian

3 Previous accountsVoice hypothesisNominalizing hypothesis

4 A New ProposalActive voiceOther voices

5 Synchronic analysisSyntactic StagesApplicatives

6 Conclusion




Proto-Austronesian

PAN voice system

Wolff 1973

Voice Affix

active *-um-passive *-enlocative *-aninstrumental *(S)i-

Crucial observation, so far neglected in the literature: voiceaffixes have other functions

Voice and Nominalizing functions,




Proto-Austronesian

PAN voice system

Wolff 1973

Voice Affix


Crucial observation, so far neglected in the literature: voiceaffixes have other functions

Voice and Nominalizing functions, but not limited to thesefunctions




Proto-Austronesian

Active voice: *-um-

No nominalizing function

Almost always intransitive*k-um-aen ‘to eat’ from *kaen ‘eating’ or *C-um-aNis ‘weep, cry’ from

*CaNis ‘weeping, crying’

Inchoative function

Bontok bıkas ‘energetic’ b-um-ıkas ‘becoming energetic’Tagalog sakıt ‘pain’ s-um-akıt ‘become painful’Tindal Dusun gayo ‘big’ g-um-ayo ‘become big’Mukah gadu ‘green’ m-gadu ‘become green’




Proto-Austronesian

Passive voice: *-en

Voice affix

Nominalization

kan-in ‘be eaten’ and ‘food’ (Blust 2013:395)




Proto-Austronesian

Locative voice: *-an

Voice affix

Nominalizationtıtis ‘cigar or cigarette ash’ vs. titis-an ‘ash tray’ or habi ‘texture, woven

pattern on fabric’ vs. habih-an ‘loom’ (Blust 2013:395)




Proto-Austronesian

Instrumental voice: *(S)i-

Historically the most opaque

*(S)i-, *(S)a-

Voice affix

NominalizerFijian sele-va ‘to cut’ vs. i-sele ‘knife’ Blust (2013:381)




Outline






6 Conclusion




Previous Accounts

Two opposing hypotheses

Affixes have both nominalizing and voice function

Voice → nominalizing

Nominalizing → voice




Voice hypothesis

Voice hypothesis

Development of nominalizing affixes from voice morphemesunusual

Dahl 1973, but no models, no explanations

“Only a broad comparative study can be decisive”

Unprecedented




Nominalizing hypothesis


Starosta et al. (1981, 1982)

Main arguments:

(a) the affixes show the nominalizing function across Austronesianlanguages, indicating that this function was original;







Main arguments:


(b) the marker for genitive case and by-phrase are the same;







Main arguments:


(b) the marker for genitive case and by-phrase are the same;(c) the affixes can surface as prefixes, suffixes, and infixes,

pointing to the fact that they had different origins







Main arguments:


(b) the marker for genitive case and by-phrase are the same;(c) the affixes can surface as prefixes, suffixes, and infixes,

pointing to the fact that they had different origins(d) the fact that the alternative explanation fails to explain

persuasively why and how the nominalizing function couldhave developed from the voice system





Nominalizing hypothesis — problems

Voice function also attested across the languages

By -phrases are cross-linguistically “most usually aninstrumental, locative, or genitive.”

(3) a. To

this

je

is

avto

car

od

of

mojega

my

strica.

uncle

“This is my uncle’s car.”b. Grozdje

grapes

je bilo

was

pobrano

picked

od

by

nas.

us

“The grapes were picked by us.”




Active voice

Outline






6 Conclusion




Active voice

A New Proposal

The proto-language had both functions

Voice and nominalization markers

Both attested in the languages




Active voice

A New Proposal

Reconstruction: one step further

Pay close attention to all attested functions of the affixes

Consider grammaticalization theory, internal reconstruction




Active voice

*-um-

Functions:

(a) active voice marking(b) intransitivity marking(c) inchoative marking




Active voice

*-um-

Functions:

(a) active voice marking(b) intransitivity marking(c) inchoative marking

What is the most likely origin?




Active voice

*-um-

Reflexive marker

Reflexives frequently develop an inchoative-marking function

French, Spanish, Polish, Bulgarian, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian,Czech, Slovenian, Macedonian and Slovak (Rivero and Milojevic

Sheppard 2003: 100; Dechaine and Wiltschko 2012:14)

(4) a. La

the

porte

door

s’

refl

est

is

ouverte.

open.fem

“The door opened”b. El

The

vaso

vase

se

refl

rompio.

broke

“The vase broke.”c. Szklanka

Glass

sie

refl

rozbiëa.

broke

“The glass broke.”




Active voice

*-um-

In Salishan Halkomelem, -T@t marks both reflexives andinchoatives (Gerdts 1998)lal@m-T@t ‘look after self’; Ti-Tat ‘get big’




Active voice

*-um-

reflexive → intransitive marking just as straightforward

Reflexives remove an internal argument

This valency-decreasing function can be reanalyzed as primary

Aranda reflexive marker -lhe develops into the intransitivizer-lhe (Heine and Kuteva 2002:252)

This proposal explains two of this morpheme’s functions:intransitivity and inchoative marking




Active voice

*-um-

How do we get to active voice marking?

*-um- simply functioned as an intransitivity marker. When theelaborate voice system with passive, instrumental, andlocative voice arose (through the process described below),this intransitivity marker simply continued to surface on(intransitive) verbs

Reanalysis as active voice marker, under the pressure of otheraffixes




Active voice

*-um-: Summary

(5) reflexive

intransitive-um-

voice marker-um-

inchoative-um-




Other voices

Other Voices

Voice Affix


Different origin: nominalizing function absent for *-um-

All three in common: voice marking and nominalizingfunctions




Other voices

Other Voices

Proposal: voice and nominalizing affixes go back toprepositions

Both functions derivable from prepositions




Other voices

Other Voices

Prepositions > nominalizers

Inter-stage with compounds




Other voices

Other Voices

Prepositions > nominalizers

Inter-stage with compounds

*‘having X Y’Tagalog tıtis ‘cigarette ash’ → titis-an *‘having ash in’ →‘ash tray’

More reasons for why the affixes likely go back toprepositions: Kaufman (forthcoming)




Other voices

Other Voices

How do we explain the development to voice system?

Broader morphosyntactic properties

My proposal: reanalysis




Other voices

Other Voices

(6) verb en-dir.obj an-loc (S)i-instr subj

Today’s Tondano and Saisiyat

Evidence that PAN did not mark nominatives

To mark semantic prominence: Preposition → preverb

The semantics of the preposition get incorporated into theverbal semantics and the corresponding argument or adjunctbecomes semantically prominent




Other voices

Other Voices

E.g. *-an, starts functioning as a preverb and incorporates itssemantics into the verb

verb en-dir.obj an-loc (S)i-instr subj




Other voices

Other Voices

E.g. *-an, starts functioning as a preverb and incorporates itssemantics into the verb

verb en-dir.obj an-loc (S)i-instr subj

verb-an en-dir.obj loc (S)i-instr subj




Other voices

Other Voices

Instances of prepositions or adverbs becomingpreverbs/applicatives are very common: Kinyarwanda (fromPeterson 1997)

(7) a. umwaana

child

y-a-taa-ye

he-pst-throw-asp

igitabo

book

mu

in

maazi

water

‘The child has thrown the book into the water.’b. umwaana

child

y-a-taa-ye-mo

he-pst-throw-asp-app

igitabo

book

mu

water

maazi

‘The child has thrown the book into the water.’




Other voices

Other Voices

Adpositions/adverbs next to DP, preverbs on verb

Vedic and Classical Sanskrit (data from Kulikov 2012:725)

(8) a. ındavah.drops

agmann

came

r˚

tasya

of.order

yonim

lap-acc

´a

to

“The drops have come upon the lap of the order.”b. ´a

to

yonim.lap-acc

vanyam

wooden-acc

asadat

sat.down

“He sat down upon the wooden lap.”

Another parallel: Tondano and Saisiyat




Other voices

Tondano and Saisiyat

DPs marked for active voice, object, instrument, and referent(Blust 2013:445)

Unmarked when promoted to focus (or subject) position

(9) a. si

top

tuama

man

k-um-eoN

av-will.pull

roda

card

wo

with

tali

rope

waki

to

pasar

market

“The man will pull the cart with the rope to the market.”b. tali

rope

i-keoN

iv-will.pull

ni

act

tuama

man

roda

cart

waki

to

pasar

market

“The man will pull the cart with the rope to the market.”

(10) a. korkoring

child

k-om-i-kita’

av-red-look.at

ka

acc

’aehoe’

dog

“The child was looking at the dog.”




Other voices

Why Subject?

How do we get to the voice system?




Other voices

Why Subject?

How do we get to the voice system?

“Promotion” to subjects: reanalysis




Other voices

Why Subject?

verb en-dir.obj an-loc subj




Other voices

Why Subject?


verb-an en-dir.obj loc subj




Other voices

Why Subject?



The only two unmarked arguments now are the subject andthe argument previously governed by the raised preposition




Other voices

Why Subject?




Pro-drop

Independent evidence for both pro-drop and null marking ofnominatives in PAN




Other voices

Why Subject?


verb-an en-dir.obj loc


Pro-drop





Other voices

Why Subject?




Pro-drop


Reanalysis




Other voices

Why Subject?




Pro-drop


Reanalysis → voice system




Other voices

Recap

The new proposal

Unifies promotion to subject and semantic prominenceCaptures the asymmetry: nominalizationvs. non-nominalization

Origin Affix

preposition suffixreflexive infix

Captures all functions of the affixesSubject-only restriction: restriction on extraction from PPPuts forth an explanation for how a peculiar and typologicallyunusual system results from well-attested morphosyntacticstages and reanalysis




Outline






6 Conclusion




Syntactic Stages

Synchronic analysis

Head-movement of P to VvP

DP

subject

v′

v VP

V

verb

PP

P

an

DP

location




Syntactic Stages

Synchronic analysis

Predicts that preverbs will follow verbal headPredicts that in Vedic (head-final) preverbs will precede

(11) vP

DP

subject

v′

VP

PP

DP

location

P

V

v




Applicatives

Applicatives

This stage when agent is the subject

After reanalysis the system developed from a system withprepositions/preverb into a system of applicative heads




Outline






6 Conclusion




Conclusion

A new explanation for the origins and development of thevoice system in Austronesian.

Typologically highly unusual morphosyntactic system findsquite typical origins

Transitive-marking system and a series of prepositions,reanalysis




Advantages

Derives the two functions: nominalization, voice marking

Accounts for asymmetries between the active voice and othervoices in the paradigm

Unifies promotion to subject and semantic prominence

Subject-only restriction

Several later developments are easily explained under myapproach




Conclusion

Show how a historical analysis offers insight into synchronicsyntactic structure

Internal reconstruction works for typologically unusual systemstoo: grammaticalization theory




ReferencesAldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell

University.———. 2015. A Minimalist Approach to the Emergence of Ergativity in Austronesian Languagesy. Linguistics

Vanguard. January 2015.Antworth, Evan. 1979. A Grammatical Sketch of Botolan Sambal. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.———. 1996. On the Structural Positions of Themes and Goals. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Studies in

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33, edited by Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring. 7-34.Dordrecht: Springer.

Blust, Robert. 2002. Notes on the History of ‘Focus’ in Austronesian. In The History and Typology of WesternAustronesian Voice Systems, edited by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 63–80. Canberra: PacificLinguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.

———. 2013. The Austronesian Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and AsianStudies, The Australian National University.

Bril, Isabelle. 2005. Semantic and functional diversification of reciprocal and middle prefixes in New Caledonianand other Austronesian languages. Linguistic Typology 9: 25-76.

Chung, Sandra and Maria Polinsky. 2009. Introduction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27(4): 659-73.Collins, Chris. 2003. The Internal Structure of vP in Ju|’hoan and }Hoan. Studia Linguistica 57:1-25.Dahl, Otto Ch. 1973. Proto-Austronesian. Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series 15. Lund:

Studentlitteratur.———. 1986. Focus in Malagasy and Proto-Austronesian. In FOCAL I: Papers from the Fourth International

Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Pacific Linguistics series C-93, edited by Paul Geraghty, LoisCarrington, S. A. Wurm. 21-42. Canberra: Australian National University.




ReferencesDechaine, Rose-Marie and Martina Wiltschko. 2012. The Heterogeneity of Reflexives. Ms.Donohue, Cathryn and Mark Donohue. 2004. On the Special Status of Instrumentals. In Proceedings of the

LFG04 Conference, edited by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. 209-225.Foley, William A. 1976. Comparative Syntax in Austronesian. PhD diss., Department of Linguistics, University of

California, Berkeley.Garrett, Andrew. 1990. Applicatives and preposition incorporation. In Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical

perspective, edited by Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell, and Errapel Mejıas-Bikandi. 183-198.Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. The Double Life of Halkomelem Reflexive Suffixes. Proceedings of the First Workshop onAmerican Indigenous Languages, Santa Barbara Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 70-83.

Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2008. Decay and loss of applicatives in Siouan languages: A grammaticalizationperspective. In Studies on Grammaticalization, edited by Elisabeth Verhoeven, Stavros Skopeteas,Yong-Min Shin, Yoko Nishina, and Johannes Helmbrecht. 135-156. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005a. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: typological characteristics.In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, edited by K. Alexander Adelaar and NikolausP. Himmelmann. 110-181. London: Routledge.

———. 2005b. Tagalog. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, edited by K. Alexander Adelaarand Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 350-376. London: Routledge.

Hsieh, Fuhui and Xuanfan Huang. 2006. The Pragmatics of Case Marking in Saisiyat. Oceanic Linguistics 45(1):91-109.

Huang, Lillian M. 2000. Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 39(2):364-390.———. 2001. Focus System of Mayrinax Atayal: a Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Perspective. Journal of

Taiwan Normal University 46:51-69.




ReferencesHuang, Shuanfan. 2002. The Pragmatics of Focus in Tsou and Seediq Language and Linguistics 3(4): 665-94.Janic, Katarzyna 2013. The Slavonic Languages and the Development of the Antipassive Marker. In Current

Studies in Slavic Linguistics, edited by Irina Kor Chahine. 61-74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. On *pa-, *pa〈R〉- and*pa〈N〉-. Handout at the 9th International Conference on

Austronesian Linguistics, Aussois.———. Forthcoming. On Proto Austronesian *-en and *-an. Abstract at the 13th International Conference on

Austronesian Linguistics, Taipei.Keenan, Edward L. and Matthew S. Dryer. 2007. Passive in the World’s Languages. In Clause Structure, Language

Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1, edited by Timothy Shopen. 325-61. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kikusawa, Ritsuko. 2012. On the Development of Applicative Construction in Austronesian Languages. Bulletin ofthe National Museum of Ethnology 36(4): 413-455.

Kulikov, Leonid. Vedic preverbs as markers of valency-changing derivations. Studies in Language 36(4): 721-46.Lord, Carol D. 1989. Syntactic Reanalysis in the Historical Development of Serial Verb Constructions in Languages

of West Africa. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Phases and the Syntax of Applicatives. In NELS, vol. 31.Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-Marking and Dependent-Marking Grammar. Language 62(1): 56-119.Pawley, Andrew, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1979. The evolution of transitive constructions in Austronesian. In

Austronesian Studies: Papers from the Second Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages.Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, No. 15, edited by Paz Buenaventura Naylor. 103-130.Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan.

Peterson, David A. 1997. The Evolution of Applicative Constructions and Proto-Austronesian Morphosyntax.Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Sessionand Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure. 278-89.




References———. 2007. Applicative Constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.Pittman, Richard. 1966. Tagalog -um- and mag-: An interim report. Papers in Philippine linguistics 1. 9-20.

Canberra: The Australian National University.Polinsky, Maria and Eric Potsdam. Forthcoming. Austronesian syntax. In Oceania, edited by Bill Palmer. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.Pylkanen, Liina. 2000. What Applicative Heads Apply to. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics

Colloquium. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 6(4).Rubino, Carl. 2005. Iloko. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, edited by Nilokaus

P. Himmelmann and K. A. Adelaar. 326-349. London: Routledge.Rude, Noel. 1991. Verbs to promotional suffixes in Sahaptian and Klamath. In Approaches to Grammaticalization.

Typological Studies in Language 19, edited by Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine. 185-199.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Reid, Lawrence A. and Hsiu-chuan Liao. 2004. A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language andLinguistics 5: 433-90.

Rivero, Marıa Luisa. 2001. On impersonal reflexives in Romance and Slavic and semantic variation. In Romancesyntax, semantics and L2 acquisition, edited by J. Camps and C. R. Wiltshire. 169–195. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Rivero, Marıa Luisa and Milena Milojevic Sheppard. 2003. Indefinite Reflexive Clitics in Slavic: Polish andSlovenian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(1): 89-155.

Robinson, Laura C. 2005. A grammatical sketch of Tindal Dusun. University of Hawai’i Working Papers inLinguistics 36(5):1-31.

Ross, Malcolm D. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Austronesian verbal morphology: evidence from Taiwan. InAustronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan. Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology 3,edited by Li, Jen-kuei, Cheng-hwa Tsang, Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho, and Chiu-yu Tseng. 727-91.Taipei: Academia Sinica.




References———. 2002. The History and Transitivity of Western Austronesian Voice and Voice-Marking. In The History and

Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems, edited by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 17-62.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian NationalUniversity.

———. 2006. Reconstructing the case-marking and personal pronoun systems of Proto Austronesian. In StreamsConverging into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Jen-kuei Li on His 70th Birthday,edited by Henry Y. Chang, Lillian M. Huang and Dah-an Ho. 521-564. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics,Academia Sinica.

———. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. In Austronesian historical linguistics andculture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust. Pacific Linguistics 601, edited by K. Alexander Adelaarand Andrew Pauley. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian NationalUniversity. 295–326.

Sneddon, James N. 1970. The Languages of Minahasa, North Celebes. Oceanic Linguistics 9(1): 11-36.Starosta, Stanley. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Papers from the Third International Conference

on Austronesian Linguistics, vol. 2, edited by Halim Amran, Lois Carrington, and S.A. Wurm. 145-170.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

———. A Grammatical Subgrouping of Formosan Languages. In Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan.Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology 3, edited by Li, Jen-kuei, Cheng-hwa Tsang,Ying-kuei Huang, Dah-an Ho, and Chiu-yu Tseng. 727-91. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Starosta, Stanley, Andrew Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1981. The Evolution of Focus in Austronesian. In ThirdInternational Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. 329-481.

———. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. In Papers from the Third International Conference onAustronesian Linguistics, vol. 2, edited by Halim Amran, Lois Carrington, and S.A. Wurm. 145-170.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.




ReferencesTsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. Split case-marking in verb types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19: 389-438.Wagner, Laura. 2012. Primary Language Acquisition. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, edited by

R. Binnick. 458–480. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wolff, John. 1973. Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. In Parangal Kay Cecilio Lopez (Essays in Honor of

Cecilio Lopez on his Seventy-fifth Birthday), edited by Andrew Gonzalez. 71-94. Quezon City: LinguisticSociety of the Philippines.

———. 1995. The position of the Austronesian languages of Taiwan within the Austronesian group. InAustronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan. Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics, AcademiaSinica 1, edited by P.J.-K. Li, D.-A. Ho, Y.-K. Huang, C.-H. Tsang, and C.-Y. Tseng. 521-83. Taipei:Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.

Wouk, Fay and Malcolm Ross (eds.). 2002. The history and typology of Western Austronesian voice systems.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Yeh, Marie Meili. 2011. Nominalization in Saisiyat. In Nominalization in Asian Languages, edited by Foong HaYap, Karen Grunow-Harsta, and Janick Wrona, 561-88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.




Thank you!

* I would like to thank Maria Polinsky, Robert Blust, Edith Aldridge, and

C.–T. James Huang for their useful comments. Special thanks goes also to

Asia Center and Tao & Cheng Research and Travel Fund at Harvard University

for supporting my research. All mistakes are my own.



voice system of austronesian and its origins · t´ıtis ‘cigar or cigarette ash’ vs. titis-an...

Documents